02.02.2013 Views

Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 2.—Socio-demographic characteristics <strong>of</strong> Off-Highway Vehicle owners by experience use history group<br />

Experience Use History Group<br />

Casual Casual Frequent Occasional Entire<br />

veterans newcomers<br />

sample<br />

Mean Age 50.0 49.2 41.7 44.9 48.6<br />

% Completing 4 year college degree 25.1 31.5 25.0 29.9 28.3<br />

Income (Modal Category) $75,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $50,000 -<br />

$99,999 $74,999 $99,999 $74,999<br />

% Married 87.7 86.9 76.2 83.6 86.0<br />

Table 3.—Differences in importance for management actions across and between experience use history groups<br />

Management Action Comparison<br />

across all<br />

groups<br />

Casual<br />

Veterans<br />

activity more <strong>of</strong>ten than both <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> casual groups, yet far<br />

less <strong>of</strong>ten than <strong>the</strong> frequent riders.<br />

Th e socio-demographic characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> four groups<br />

are in Table 2. Th e entire sample <strong>of</strong> OHV owners was<br />

predominantly white (98.4 percent), married (86.0<br />

percent), and self-identifi ed as politically conservative<br />

(59.5 percent). Th e frequency distributions <strong>of</strong> respondents’<br />

ages across EUH groups were signifi cantly diff erent<br />

from expectations (� 2 = 39.70, df = 15, p = 0.001). Th e<br />

obvious deviation came from <strong>the</strong> fact that frequent riders<br />

tended to be younger compared to those in o<strong>the</strong>r groups.<br />

However, we found no signifi cant relationships between<br />

EUH group membership and income (� 2 = 17.82, df =<br />

18, p = 0.468) or group membership and education (� 2 =<br />

14.82, df = 15, p = 0.464).<br />

4.2 EUH and <strong>the</strong> Importance <strong>of</strong><br />

and Satisfaction with Specifi c<br />

Management Actions<br />

Using simple one-way ANOVAs, we found that EUH<br />

is related to two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fi ve importance questions (p ≤<br />

0.05). Th e comparisons across all groups, as well as <strong>the</strong><br />

between-group diff erences, are reported in Table 3. OHV<br />

owners with diff erent patterns <strong>of</strong> prior experience also<br />

Experience Use History Groups<br />

Casual<br />

Newcomers<br />

gave signifi cantly diff erent rankings to <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong><br />

providing adequate trailhead facilities. Between-group<br />

comparisons reveal that casual veterans (riders who had<br />

been riding for a relatively long time but on average take<br />

fewer than six trips per year) diff ered signifi cantly from<br />

occasional riders. Given <strong>the</strong> two groups’ similar length <strong>of</strong><br />

activity involvement, this fi nding suggests that increased<br />

frequency <strong>of</strong> participation in <strong>the</strong> activity is related to a<br />

decreased need for developed trailhead facilities. OHV<br />

riders with diff erent patterns <strong>of</strong> prior experience also<br />

exhibited signifi cant diff erences in <strong>the</strong> importance placed<br />

on <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> signage. Post-hoc tests revealed that<br />

casual newcomers diff ered signifi cantly from every o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

EUH group. Th is fi nding suggests that both increased<br />

frequency <strong>of</strong> participation and increased length <strong>of</strong><br />

involvement in <strong>the</strong> activity are related to a decreased need<br />

for trail or area signage.<br />

Next, we followed <strong>the</strong> same analytical procedure to test<br />

for signifi cant diff erences across <strong>the</strong> four EUH groups<br />

with regard to satisfaction with <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> fi ve management actions. Th e results <strong>of</strong> our analysis<br />

revealed no signifi cant diff erences in satisfaction with<br />

management based on patterns <strong>of</strong> prior experience.<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>2009</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66<br />

Frequent Occasional All groups<br />

Provision <strong>of</strong> Information F3, 530 = 0.02 4.01 4.02 4.00 4.03 4.02<br />

Provision <strong>of</strong> Trailhead Facilities F3, 531 = 2.50* 3.83a 3.78 3.62 3.52a 3.73<br />

Provision <strong>of</strong> Site Maintenance F3, 531 = 0.23 4.01 4.01 3.86 3.96 3.99<br />

Provision <strong>of</strong> Signage F3, 531 = 3.12* 4.05a 4.24abc 3.81b 3.96c 4.08<br />

Provision <strong>of</strong> Law Enforcement F3, 532 = 1.31 3.69 3.74 3.90 3.53 3.68<br />

Note. Groups with signifi cant differences are noted with similar superscripts.<br />

85

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!